Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 08:33:46PM +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Teodoro Santoni <asbrasbra@???> writes:
>> > 2016-03-06 18:23 GMT+01:00, Steve Litt <slitt@???>:
>> >> What did they replace X11 forwarding with? (I shudder to ask)
>> >
>> > Nothing afaik.
>> > Some people are enabling VNC for wayland compositors though.
>> > They are very akin technologies.
>>
>> Not at all, actually. VNC based on keeping two bitmapped displays in
>> sync by sending by sending 'bitmap updates' from the remote machine to
>> 'the local display'. Even in a LAN environment (disclaimer: Haven't used
>> it since 2004) this is a clunky mechanism which sucks badly.
>
> Is that what I get with ssh -X? I've noticed it's sometimes quite klunky.
> The doc says something about setting up a dummy X server that relays
> everything to the real X server.

ssh -X is basically 'straight X' but with the protocol traffic
transparently forwarded over the SSH connection and some convenience
features like "setting up a suitable DISPLAY" and
"handling MIT magic cookie authentication".

For this to work well (for applications where there's any hope that it
could work well), the remote system needs to have good upstream
bandwidth to "the internet" which will usually not be the case if ADSL
is being used. Running dxpc over a ssh-tunneled TCP connection worked
satisfactorily for me for this case.

> As for the straight X protocol? Soe years ago it seems to have become
> so paranoid I can't get it to talk to a server that isn't on the same
> machine as the client.

"Nowadays", X servers don't usually listen on TCP ports by default
anymore but this can be enabled. But I consider 'ssh -X' or 'ssh + dxpc'
a better solution as both support transparent compression which is very
helpful with 'remote X'.